That might be the one reason I would fight in iraq...but then it would have to be with the approval and support of the UN, not as we did it and there would have to be a clear plan to restore order and peace.
That's the liberal viewpoint. We can only act with the approval and support of the UN. Of course, the UN is notoriously ineffective in just about everything it does, so if our foreign policy is dependent upon UN approval, why bother with having a foreign policy?
My view is the UN should be abolished at once. So, obviously, I don't believe we should seek or require their approval for a damned thing. Competent foreign policy requires leadership, and "consensus is the absence of leadership". We don't need, nor should we seek, consensus in these matters.
that is that the war has wrought havoc with America's ability to defend itself.
Again, this is the point of view of an extremist liberal, not that of a competent foreign policy. America is doing just fine defending itself -- thanks in part to the Iraq War. We are now in a position to begin withdrawing from the Middle East, something that NEVER, EVER could have happened as long as Saddam was in power.
Why bother. If you are stuck in a liberal dogma you can never have any real understanding of the basic precepts of foreign policy.
You think that if you're nice to your enemies they'll be nice to you. The world doesn't work that way and there are 4,000 years of history that prove it. |
